If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Debunking Ape man ancestor myth- WOW.

"Ape-Men"—What

WereThey?

FOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are "ape-men" our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: "How Ape Became Man."1

2 True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called "apes." Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.2 Stephen Jay Gould says: "People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors."3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: "The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys."4

3 Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in Chapter 6, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.

4 From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced "links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

HowMuchFossilEvidence?

5 From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?

6 TheBulletinoftheAtomicScientists informs us: "The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists." This scientific publication shows why: "People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work."5

7 After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of "ape-men"? Richard Leakey stated: "Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions."6 NewScientist commented: "Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive."7

8 Similarly, the book Origins admits: "As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence."8 Science magazine adds: "The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of WarandPeace with 13 randomly selected pages."9

9 Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding "ape-men"? Note the following. Newsweek: "‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University."10 TheNewYorkTimes: "The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years."11 ScienceDigest: "The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."12

10 Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book TheMismeasureofMan, notes: "We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homosapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago."13 Thus, the book TheUniverseWithin asks: "What caused evolution . . . to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?"14 Evolution is unable to answer. But could the answer lie in the creation of a very complex, different creature?

Where

Arethe"Links"?

11 However, have not scientists found the necessary "links" between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. ScienceDigest speaks of "the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man."15 Newsweek observed: "The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule."16

12 Because there are no links, "phantom creatures" have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: "Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion."17

13 Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the JournaloftheRoyalCollegeofSurgeonsofEdinburgh: "The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more."18 He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Man’s"FamilyTree"

14 As a result, the "family tree" often drawn of man’s claimed evolution from lower animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a more recent fossil discovery "leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change."19 And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared: "Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of man, every drawing of man’s family tree will have to be junked. They are apparently wrong."20

15 The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted "links." An editorial in TheNewYorkTimes observed that evolutionary science "includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere."21

16 In a book review of TheMythsofHumanEvolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that "the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at," this publication stated: "Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’"

17 Discover concluded: "The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past."22 Perhaps "lost" from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative "found" our parents as they actually are in the fossil record—fully human, just as we are?

18 The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

WhatDidTheyLookLike?

19 However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of "ape-men" flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based? The book TheBiologyofRace answers: "The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination." It adds: "Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men."23

20 ScienceDigest also commented: "The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it."24 Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: "No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like."25

21 Indeed, NewScientist reported that there is not "enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy."26 So the depictions of "ape-men" are, as one evolutionist admitted, "pure fiction in most respects . . . sheer invention."27 Thus in Man,GodandMagic Ivar Lissner commented: "Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man."28

22 In their desire to find evidence of "ape-men," some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike "missing link" was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the "evidence" consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.29

WhatWereThey?

23 If "ape-man" reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago. In their book Lucy:TheBeginningsofHumankind, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote: "They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels."30 Richard Leakey called the mammal a "rat-like primate."31 But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.

24 Next on the generally accepted list, with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as: "Monkey-like creature was our ancestor." (Time)32 "Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes." (TheNewYorkTimes)33 "Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes." (Origins)34 But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found.

The

RiseandFallof"Ape-Men"

25 Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus—Rama’s ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India). Fossils of it were found in India about half a century ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: "As far as one can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the human family."35

26 What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same publication remarked: "The evidence concerning Ramapithecus is considerable—though in absolute terms it remains tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth."36 Do you think that this was "considerable" enough "evidence" to reconstruct an upright "ape-man" ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an "ape-man," and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature—all on the basis of jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as TheNewYorkTimes reported, for decades Ramapithecus "sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree."37

27 However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family. So NewScientist now declares: "Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line."38 Such new information provoked the following question in NaturalHistory magazine: "How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward-marching procession?"39 Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say.

28 Another gap of vast proportions lies between that creature and the next one that had been listed as an "ape-man" ancestor. This is called Australopithecus—southern ape. Fossils of it were first found in southern Africa in the 1920’s. It had a small apelike braincase, heavy jawbone and was pictured as walking on two limbs, stooped over, hairy and apish looking. It was said to have lived beginning about three or four million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor.

29 For instance, the book TheSocialContract noted: "With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines . . . are actual human ancestors."40 TheNewYorkTimes declared: "It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homosapiens, or modern man."41 And in Man,Time,andFossils Ruth Moore said: "By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors." Emphatically she declared: "The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found."42

30 But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed "ape-men."
31 So, too, with Australopithecus.More research has disclosed that its skull "differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity."43 Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: "When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white."44 He also said: "Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homosapiens but the living monkeys and apes."45 Donald Johanson also said: "Australopithecines . . . were not men."46 Similarly Richard Leakey called it "unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines."47

32 If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them "ape-men." The same is true of other fossil "cousins" that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called "Lucy." Of it Robert Jastrow says: "This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain."48 Obviously, it too was simply an "ape." In fact, NewScientist said that "Lucy" had a skull "very like a chimpanzee’s."49

33 Another fossil type is called Homoerectus—upright man. Its brain size and shape do fall into the lower range of modern man’s. Also, the EncyclopædiaBritannica observed that "the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of H[omo] sapiens."50 However, it is unclear whether it was human or not. If so, then it was merely a branch of the human family and died off.

TheHumanFamily

34 Neanderthal man (named after the Neander district in Germany where the first fossil was found) was undoubtedly human. At first he was pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. Now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern humans. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle stated: "There is no evidence that Neanderthal man was in any way inferior to ourselves."51 As a result, recent drawings of Neanderthals have taken on a more modern look.

35 Another fossil type frequently encountered in scientific literature is Cro-Magnon man. It was named for the locality in southern France where his bones were first unearthed. These specimens "were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans," said the book Lucy.52

36 Thus, the evidence is clear that belief in "ape-men" is unfounded. Instead, humans have all the earmarks of being created—separate and distinct from any animal. Humans reproduce only after their own kind. They do so today and have always done so in the past. Any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that—apes, or monkeys—not humans. And fossils of ancient humans that differ slightly from humans of today simply demonstrate variety within the human family, just as today we have many varieties living side by side. There are seven-foot humans and there are pygmies, with varying sizes and shapes of skeletons. But all belong to the same human "kind," not animal "kind." WhatAbouttheDates?

37 Biblical chronology indicates that a period of about 6,000 years has passed since the creation of humans. Why, then, does one often read about far longer periods of time since acknowledged human types of fossils appeared?

38 Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that "dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude." It said: "Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."53

39 For example, the radiocarbon "clock." This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before.54

40 Keep in mind that truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in TheFateoftheEarth we read: "Only six or seven thousand years ago . . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world."55

TheLastTwoMillionYears states:

"In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC." It also says: "Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records."56 The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.

41 In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science: "The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately."57

42 When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said: "The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior." He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution "and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy." Muggeridge concluded: "Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied."

I'm hoping this is the fossil record issue your talking about, because I am going to shred this thing with so evidence and correction it's not even funny.

I believe you asked about human-ape fossils?

Yes, there is a certain element of imagination involved in the portrayal of hominids. However, the core facts of the image are well supported by physical anthropology. That small amount of imagination, such as the colour of the hair and the behaviour shown, do not invalidate the entire image.

Creationists would have you believe that any disagreement between scientists or any change in an accepted model is indicative of a fatal flaw in science. In this matter, as in so many others, creationists are wrong. In science, there are many areas of interest for which the evidence is too fragmentary to clearly support one hypothesis or model over others. It should be no surprise then that any new evidence will have a large impact on the field and the proposed models.

The "Theory of human evolution" is not based on wishful thinking. It is based off of the study of over one and a half centuries of observations and evidence gathered by anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists, as demonstrated adequately through this site and others. The only way creationists can dismiss such mountainous proofs as being mere "wishful thinking" is, ironically, with wishful thinking.

Historically, scientists who believed in creationism came to accept that the evidence did not match it despite their wishful thinking. That's how evolutionary theory was founded, because it matched the evidence better.

Around the world, this pattern continues. People from around the globe exposed to the evidence conclude either their religion was right all along (wishful thinking) or that the evidence supports evolution. It's notable that no Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, etc. scientists can see any evidence of a global flood 4500 years ago, which creationists claim is obvious. Just where is the wishful thinking here?

Thus, it is only natural that scientists who are investigating such areas might disagree with one another on what the fragments of evidence indicate. At the same time, there are many other fields in which the evidence does clearly support one theory over any other, and it is, again, only natural that scientists do not disagree with each other on those theories that are well-supported by the evidence.

If scientists' disagreements about specific details of the human family tree are a reason to reject evolution, Creationists' disagreements about such things as the age of the Earth (YECs say millennia, OECs say billions of years), whether or not Noah's Flood happened, etc, are, equally, a reason to reject Creationism.

Modern humans did not descend from modern apes. Modern humans and modern apes had a common ancestor species that has since gone extinct.

Speciation does not demand or even require that every member of a parent population be changed or go extinct.

Speciation generally occurs in a subpopulation that becomes reproductively isolated from the main group. Therefore, both the parent species and the daughter species can exist simultaneously.

This claim is probably based on a misunderstanding of the concept of natural selection. The claimant thinks that according to the theory of evolution, a species evolves from another because it has higher fitness than that species, so all individuals of the old species should have either evolved into the new one or died out. But fitness is always related to the environment. Non-human apes do well in their environment (tropical rainforests).

Our ancestors moved onto the plains and adapted well for that environment. Both forms of life are successful for different reasons and in different environments.

The person who uses this claim also seems to assume that humans are not themselves apes. Homo sapiens is a species of ape in the exact same way H. sapiens is a species of mammal and a species of gnathostome vertebrate.

I believe you also asked about the gap between reptiles..and amphibians?

Reptiles are not descended from modern-day amphibians ("Lissamphibia"), rather the two groups arose from a common temnospondyl amphibian ancestor sometime during the late Devonian or early Carboniferous.

DONE!

And before you go off into a tangent about my qualifications to answer these questions. Understand this I served in the military for 4 years. I've been to war. And trust me when I say there is no way a GOD could support the horrors of any war...religious, or ideal. You ain't never been on a battlefield.

Second, when I got my honorable discharge and silver star...I went to college. I graduated with a minor in Physics, and a B.S. in Psychology. Now within that...for 3 years I had to study genetics, biochemistry, anatomy, evolutionary anthropology as well. Virgina Tech class 06.

I am someone very qualified to speak on these issues, I earned that right.

Yes, there is a certain element of imagination involved in the portrayal of hominids. However, the core facts of the image are well supported by physical anthropology. That small amount of imagination, such as the colour of the hair and the behaviour shown, do not invalidate the entire image.

From this article, there seems to be a very high level of imagination. Even so much so to commit fraud! The greatest minds on the earth are driven to commit petty crimes of fraud to validate their belief.

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz

Creationists would have you believe that any disagreement between scientists or any change in an accepted model is indicative of a fatal flaw in science. In this matter, as in so many others, creationists are wrong. In science, there are many areas of interest for which the evidence is too fragmentary to clearly support one hypothesis or model over others. It should be no surprise then that any new evidence will have a large impact on the field and the proposed models..

And evolutionists will have us to believe in many things they have little to no evidence on based on what they believe, and try to make it stand as factual.

This article alone has depicted 4 supposed ape man that prominent scientists and scientific magazines promoted as our ancestors on mostly very little evidence and huge imaginations. When the evidence added up, they retracted. Again I will say this, no scientists on earth would disagree that the earth is a sphere that hangs on nothing. That means it must be a fact. So while it remains that some scientists agree with evolution, it is a fact that a lot disagree. And the evidence of such ape man ancestors has been mostly imagination instead of factual.

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz

The "Theory of human evolution" is not based on wishful thinking. It is based off of the study of over one and a half centuries of observations and evidence gathered by anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists, as demonstrated adequately through this site and others. The only way creationists can dismiss such mountainous proofs as being mere "wishful thinking" is, ironically, with wishful thinking..

EARTH TO APE MAN SEEKER... THERE IS NO MOUNTAINOUS PROOF!

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz

Historically, scientists who believed in creationism came to accept that the evidence did not match it despite their wishful thinking. That's how evolutionary theory was founded, because it matched the evidence better.

And I am sure there are many scientists who now after not finding the missing link, and these mountainous regions of evidence, have gone the other way.

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz

Around the world, this pattern continues. People from around the globe exposed to the evidence conclude either their religion was right all along (wishful thinking) or that the evidence supports evolution. It's notable that no Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, etc. scientists can see any evidence of a global flood 4500 years ago, which creationists claim is obvious. Just where is the wishful thinking here?

What evidence bro? THEY CALL IT THE MISSING LINK BECAUSE IT IS MISSING!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz

Thus, it is only natural that scientists who are investigating such areas might disagree with one another on what the fragments of evidence indicate. At the same time, there are many other fields in which the evidence does clearly support one theory over any other, and it is, again, only natural that scientists do not disagree with each other on those theories that are well-supported by the evidence.

Wait, I thought we had mountains of evidence? Now we have fragments? And the fragments they do find are either human, or ape. No inbetween. No missing link. Just some bones, and imagination.

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz

If scientists' disagreements about specific details of the human family tree are a reason to reject evolution, Creationists' disagreements about such things as the age of the Earth (YECs say millennia, OECs say billions of years), whether or not Noah's Flood happened, etc, are, equally, a reason to reject Creationism.

The belief of the flood stems from further proofs of the bible and faith based on other evidence of truths in the bible. Unlike science, the bible has made no misteps to those truly trying to understand it. You can rant and rave all you wish about what you percieve to be untruths about the bible, but as long as you do that, you will never be able to grasp the truth. You don't look at the bible in the proper viewpoint, how can you expect to understand it? It's like being in a class with a substitute. You have taken the day off.

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz

Modern humans did not descend from modern apes. Modern humans and modern apes had a common ancestor species that has since gone extinct..

I know you believe I am a moron, but I can read. The article I posted tells exactly what scientists believe. They spend all their lives looking for the missing link. Those with hope in it, like you will say they are extinct, and we cannot find them. But the article reasons really well on that when it says..Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced "links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz

And before you go off into a tangent about my qualifications to answer these questions. Understand this I served in the military for 4 years. I've been to war. And trust me when I say there is no way a GOD could support the horrors of any war...religious, or ideal. You ain't never been on a battlefield.

Second, when I got my honorable discharge and silver star...I went to college. I graduated with a minor in Physics, and a B.S. in Psychology. Now within that...for 3 years I had to study genetics, biochemistry, anatomy, evolutionary anthropology as well. Virgina Tech class 06.

I am someone very qualified to speak on these issues, I earned that right.

I never challenged your credentials. I am the moron here, remember? I would never dare to pretend I am on your immense level of intellect and technique. You have clearly shown you have the superior mind here.

That said, I find things like this quite telling.

38 Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that "dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude." It said: "Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."53

REALLY???? WOW!

39 For example, the radiocarbon "clock." This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before.54WORD?!

TheLastTwoMillionYears states:"In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC." It also says: "Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records."56 The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.

41 In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science: "The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately."57YIKES!
I never knew this. Mankind can only accurately be traced about 5 thousand years back???? I always wondered how they can decide how many millions of years old something is, but now that it is told it is faulty, how can one put total faith in it? EVER?